From: James Rogers (jamesr@best.com)
Date: Thu Feb 12 1998 - 20:36:16 MST
At 04:14 PM 2/12/98 -0800, Rod wrote:
>I may be speaking against the extropian principle of "dynamic optimism"
>but I
>think "dynamic realism" would do the faithful better. No one can
>honestly
>deny the environmental devestation we have wrecked on the planet, the
>many
>species we have driven to extinction, global warming, pollution, and
>cancer.
>You can't shrug that off as being "doom and gloom". It's reality like it
>or not.
>And as I receall, even Simon didn't say destroying Nature was a good
>thing.
Is this a troll or what?
(Actually, i believe the proper word is "trawl", but this misspelling seems
common.)
I could have turned on CNN and heard what you just wrote. You are spouting
the party line of the concensus-based "science" of the general public.
Your "devastation" has very marginal validity when evaluated rationally
(and these issues have generally been discussed in great deal on this
list). I hope for your sake that you have a great deal of evidence to back
up your claims of this omnipresent "doom and gloom", because few people on
this list will accept it on your word or the concensus of the general
population.
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:48:36 MST